Canon RF 24/1.8 versus Sigma 28/1.4

[AJ]

I'm in the market for a wideangle prime, and I'm really torn between Canon RF 24/1.8 and Sigma 28/1.4
Intended uses: astrophotography (tracked), after-dark walk-around shooting in cities and towns (travel), and daylight landscape photography.
Wideangle lenses owned already: RF 24-240, RF 16/2.8, EF 50/1.8

Plusses for the Canon:
- Has IS.
- Small, lightweight, which is a BIG plus for travel and hiking
- Native RF mount, no putzing with adapters (although this is not a big deal)
- Close focus ability (doubt I will use this much

Downsides of Canon
- Relatively expensive
- Consumer-grade build
- While the center is sharp, the corners aren't the sharpest and will likely need stopping down.
- Need to stop down to f/2.8 at least for astro.

Plusses for Sigma
- Built like a tank
- 2/3 stops faster
- Very sharp, even wide open. Corner-to-corner sharpness
- Occasionally goes on sale for 450-500 USD which is a screamin' a deal

Downsides of Sigma
- Heavy. I could be hiking or traveling, and if the lens stays home because of weight then what's the point.

Thoughts?

 

[Frodo]

You've made an excellent summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses. I've used adapted Sigma 35 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses and they are huge and I found them unbalanced. As you note, if it stays at home, what's the point.
I bought the Canon, astro is okay at f/2.8, and I have no regrets.

 

[AJ]

Thanks Frodo. The part I'm struggling with is the "okay at f/2.8" when I could get "awesome at f/1.4"

 

[jd7]

Thanks Frodo. The part I'm struggling with is the "okay at f/2.8" when I could get "awesome at f/1.4"

The answer is obvious, clearly you need both!

I have had several Sigma Art primes and I've loved the images they produce. Portability is not a strength though.

For what it is worth, if you think you can get by with one or more of your other lenses when you want portability, maybe give the Sigma a go? On the other hand, the fact the Sigma is an EF lens may (just speculating) reduce its resale value if that matters to you, and of course only you can say how much the portability issue matters to you.

 

[AJ]

The answer is obvious, clearly you need both!

Hahaha. I suppose me asking this question here, on Canonrumors, is a bit like walking into a bar and asking the regulars: "I'm thirsty. Should I order a beer or a whiskey?"

 

[AJ]

But more seriously now. I'm leaning towards the Canon. For landscaping, the 24 mm prime would be a step up from the 24-240 superzoom. Here is a comparison at f/8

Canon RF 24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

I also have the 16/2.8 and I'm generally happy with the results. Sure, the corners could be a bit sharper, but that little prime is almost always in the camera bag, and at 400 CAD it's a no-brainer. The 24 mm is a tad sharper than it.

Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Which brings us to astro. The RF 16/2.8 has been great for aurora, and has been good for tracked landscape /Milky Way shots. But I'm looking for more detail and a tighter angle. Rather than getting a 28 mm prime, maybe I should save up for a 35/1.4. I often shoot nighttime panoramas (stitching in post) to get a wide angle of view (the Milky Way is huge), so there is no need for a second 24 mm lens. A 2x2 pano with a 35 mm lens covers the same angle as a 14 mm lens, and a 3x3 pano does the same with plenty of overlap. A 35 mm would be nice to have. I tend to gravitate towards 24 and 35 mm rather than 28 mm and 50 mm anyways.

 

[Frodo]

But more seriously now. I'm leaning towards the Canon. For landscaping, the 24 mm prime would be a step up from the 24-240 superzoom. Here is a comparison at f/8

Canon RF 24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

I also have the 16/2.8 and I'm generally happy with the results. Sure, the corners could be a bit sharper, but that little prime is almost always in the camera bag, and at 400 CAD it's a no-brainer. The 24 mm is a tad sharper than it.

Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Which brings us to astro. The RF 16/2.8 has been great for aurora, and has been good for tracked landscape /Milky Way shots. But I'm looking for more detail and a tighter angle. Rather than getting a 28 mm prime, maybe I should save up for a 35/1.4. I often shoot nighttime panoramas (stitching in post) to get a wide angle of view (the Milky Way is huge), so there is no need for a second 24 mm lens. A 2x2 pano with a 35 mm lens covers the same angle as a 14 mm lens, and a 3x3 pano does the same with plenty of overlap. A 35 mm would be nice to have. I tend to gravitate towards 24 and 35 mm rather than 28 mm and 50 mm anyways.

As you will be aware, the key aberation for astro is coma. I had a EF 35/2 IS and it was awful. Significantly worse than the RF 24/1.8. Canon doesn't tend to control coma well in its fast primes. I would check that out before getting an EF 35/1.4L.
If you message me your email address, I'll send you some raw astro photos with the RF 24/1.8 so you can judge yourself.

 

[AJ]

As you will be aware, the key aberation for astro is coma. I had a EF 35/2 IS and it was awful. Significantly worse than the RF 24/1.8. Canon doesn't tend to control coma well in its fast primes. I would check that out before getting an EF 35/1.4L.
If you message me your email address, I'll send you some raw astro photos with the RF 24/1.8 so you can judge yourself.

Right. Coma on the RF 35/1.8 looks pretty bad as well. The Sigma 35/1.4 Art is supposed to be better in this regard.
I did see your thread on the 24/1.8 and its coma is diminished significantly when the lens is stopped down a bit. I wish TDP would show coma at various fstops rather than only wide open.

 

[LovePhotography]

RF doesn't need the adaptor. Sigma does. Resale / future-proof goes to the Canon.

 

[SwissFrank]

Canon doesn't tend to control coma well in its fast primes.

Do you mean, historically? Or even now? I had the EF35/1.4MkI and its coma sucked BIG time. Then I got a Leica M6 and 35/1.4 and I think I sold the EF35 in part to pay for that.

I saw a YouTube vid comparing the Sigma 28/1.4 vs. a similar Sigma model (24/1.4? 30/1.4? 35/1.4?) and the coma on the the 28/1.4 is fantastic and the other was so-so.

 

[Michael Clark]

As you will be aware, the key aberation for astro is coma. I had a EF 35/2 IS and it was awful. Significantly worse than the RF 24/1.8. Canon doesn't tend to control coma well in its fast primes. I would check that out before getting an EF 35/1.4L.
If you message me your email address, I'll send you some raw astro photos with the RF 24/1.8 so you can judge yourself.

I've had the same experience with my EF 35mm f/2 IS. Totally useless for astro work, unless you're looking for UFOs swarming around the edges of the frame to support your conspiracy theories.

 

[SwissFrank]

Canon doesn't tend to control coma well in its fast primes. I would check that out before getting an EF 35/1.4L.
If you message me your email address, I'll send you some raw astro photos with the RF 24/1.8 so you can judge yourself.

I think it's case by case. I had the EF35/1.4 MkI the month it came out and I had never seen coma like that--turned points of light into birds. Horrible. But I hear the EF35/1.4 MkII was totally different.

I don't know the Sigma line-up well but there's an astrophotography video on YouTube comparing their 28/1.4 with their (I think?) 24/1.4 and the the 28/1.4 was basically zero coma while the other was pretty bad.

Why not post an example astro photo here? I think a lot of people would be interested in seeing them besides the one person asking the question. Or just post a corner at 1:1 to show the coma, or something. I'd be interested in seeing that but I don't want to bother you with sending me a personal copy.

 

[Frodo]

Here are some photos from a hiking trip last week (New Zealand South Island west coast). R5, RF 24/1.8, 10 secs @ f/3.5, ISO 6400. All photos sized at 2000 pixels along the long edge.
(1) Processed in Lightroom using Adobe profile. Adjusted white balance, no enhancement of milky way. I have not removed satellite tracks
(2) As with (1) but RAW conversion with DXO PureRaw 2 DeepPrime (I'm not convinced that DeepPrimeXD is better for these images). Note the slightly greater field of view. I've tried to match exposure. This image has noticeably more detail and much less noise than the Adobe profile.
(3) Crop from image centre
(4) Crop from image top left. Coma is, in my view, quite acceptable. Ellipses are probably due to star movement.
I can post a photo taken with my RF 16mm at the same time if wanted.

 

[SwissFrank]

coma not bad but notable... color fringing too... I'd love to see the 16mm details too. I got the Sigma 28/1.4 in part on the grounds the 24/1.4 coma looked far worse. (But mostly because my EF24/1.4 always seemed too wide and EF35/1.4 too normal.)

 

[Frodo]

Here is the RF 16/2.8 : 13s @ f/4, ISO 3200. Processed as above. If I spent a little more time, I could get a more satisfying image.
By the way, this was taken from the porch of the cabin we were staying in.

 

[SwissFrank]

Here is the RF 16/2.8 : 13s @ f/4, ISO 3200. Processed as above. If I spent a little more time, I could get a more satisfying image.
By the way, this was taken from the porch of the cabin we were staying in.

Nice framing... If you have time to show the coma and color fringing from a deep corner I think people would be interested to A/B compare that to the 24/1.4. I sure would!

 

[Frodo]

Here is a 720 x 400 mm print, part of an exhibition starting tomorrow. R5, RF 24/1.8, f/8 @ ISO 100. This is my standard size print and the RF 24/1.8 is plenty sharp. The camera is a couple of inches from the water surface, so the foreground is not 100% sharp (which adds to the image). By the way, that's my home town in the background.

 

[[email protected]]

I know this is an old thread, but a couple notes:
1) There are three "special" Sigma Art lenses that are recognized internally as especially brilliant designs: the 28mm and 40mm f/1.4 lenses and the 105mm lens. I own the first two, and - while heavy - they're not beat by anything else out there I'm aware of. Of course, that increment of performance is perhaps a diminishing rate of returns for the money and weight, BUT the resale value of those isn't going to go down as much.
2) I like having these various special EF lenses because I use third party filter adapters, giving me a ton more options. Using a great variable ND filter on the Sigma 2.8 is just something you cannot do reasonably on the RF (where you'd have a bunch of different-sized filters). As a practical matter, I never bring screw-in filters with me unless I know I'll need them, but having a couple drop-ins (1 VND and 1 Polarizer) is super easy.
3) When I fool around with other bodies from Sony and Panasonic, I just throw on different adapters, and the lenses work just as well.

 

[SwissFrank]

BUT the resale value of those isn't going to go down as much

I also got mine at Adorama's half-price sale. I can't remember the exact figures but it might have been US$549 even though it was normally $1100 or something. In Tokyo it was I think around US$900 or something.

My copy doesn't seem to be super-sharp but it does seem to have zero coma. My old EF35/1.4 MkI had coma from hell, and as I had just gotten a Leica M6 I got the 35/1.4ASPH and sold the Canon. Looking at this old photo--what camera did I take it with, must have been the EOS-3?? I'm surprised to see the rub marks on the EF35. I must have used it more than I recall. (Or maybe I bought it used?? but within a few months of going on sale??)